As
2019 draws to a close and we look back at the events of the past year, reflect
upon the gains and the losses and the lessons learnt, the one issue that is
impossible to ignore is the rapid decline of secularism in India.
The Modi regime, backed by a solid parliamentary majority it got in 2019, has
set into motion changes that have fundamentally altered India by forcibly extinguishing
its secular ethos.
Although,
India proudly claims to be the largest democracy in the world, democracy in
India has largely been confined to the successful holding of elections.
For
democracy to be meaningful, adherence to other sacrosanct
principles of democracy are necessary. These principles include respect for democratic institutions, a
legislature that engages in meaningful debate, independent judiciary, a free and
thriving media that encourages debate and dissent.
Under
the new Modi regime, democratic norms have been severe constricted. Today,
India under Modi has no patience for secular principles and is keen to enforce
aggressive majoritarianism.
Two events
that demonstrated this tendency are:
The lockdown in Kashmir
The passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act and the
implementation of the National Register of Citizens.
The Modi regime found a semblance of support for its assertive moves in
Kashmir, primarily because many in India believe that the stalemate in Kashmir
needs to be resolved. And if old methods haven’t yielded results in the last
seven decades, new methods must be tried.
However,
the lockdown of the state and its people since August 2019 is unacceptable, and
a gross violation of people’s rights to freedom.
When
the exercise of identifying illegal immigrants was launched in Assam after Modi
was reelected, it raised legitimate concerns because New Delhi now had a
government that swore by majoritarianism, and was not above using the state’s
enormous reach to propagate its exclusivist philosophy of aggressive Hindutva.
Pertinently,
the exercise of implementing the NRC in Assam proved how difficult, if not
impossible, it would be for a large number of people to prove their Indian
citizenship. Nearly two million people (including Hindus) could not prove that they were Indians.
Perhaps
in recognition of the anomaly that the NRC would result in the exclusion of
Hindus, as well, the Modi regime amended the citizenship act to accord
citizenship rights to non-Muslim immigrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and
Pakistan.
Modi’s
supporters may claim that the amendment is to help minorities in these
countries emigrate to India. But the fact is that the purpose of both the NRC
and the amended citizenship act is to exclude Muslims.
Amit
Shah, India’s Home Minister and the second-most important minister in the Modi regime openly declared that the citizenship register would be implemented
across India to ferret out illegal immigrants.
“It
is our commitment to implement National Register of Citizens (NRC) across the
country to weed out the infiltrators. First, we will bring the Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill to ensure that eligible refugees get citizenship, and then we
will introduce NRC to throw out the infiltrators. They are termites, they are
eating into the country's resources,” Shah asserted.
He
declared in the Indian Parliament, “Maan ke chaliye, NRC aane wala hai.” (Take
it as a given that the NRC will be introduced across the country).
In
July 2019, when the implementation of the National Citizens Register was
launched in Assam, the following protest poem, “I am a Miya’ written by Hafiz
Ahmed spread like wildfire on the internet.
Write
Down ‘I am a Miya’
Write
Write
Down
I am
a Miya
My
serial number in the NRC is 200543
I
have two children
Another
is coming
Next
summer.
Will
you hate him
As
you hate me?
Write
I am
a Miya
I
turn waste, marshy lands
To
green paddy fields
To
feed you.
I
carry bricks
To
build your buildings
Drive
your car
For
your comfort
Clean
your drain
To
keep you healthy.
I
have always been
In
your service
And
yet
you
are dissatisfied!
Write
down
I am
a Miya,
A
citizen of a democratic, secular, Republic
Without
any rights
My
mother a D voter,
Though
her parents are Indian.
If
you wish kill me, drive me from my village,
Snatch
my green fields
hire
bulldozers
To
roll over me.
Your
bullets
Can
shatter my breast
for
no crime.
Write
I am
a Miya
Of
the Brahamaputra
Your
torture
Has
burnt my body black
Reddened
my eyes with fire.
Beware!
I
have nothing but anger in stock.
Keep
away!
Or
Turn
to Ashes.
Translated
by Shalim M. Hussain
Will
this protest poem be a requiem for India’s secularism?
The
internet informs me that a requiem “is a religious ceremony performed for
the dead. ... The word requiem comes from the opening words of the
Roman Catholic Mass for the Dead, which is spoken or sung in Latin
(requies means “rest”).
In a
nonreligious context the word refers simply to an act of remembrance.”
Some
of the biggest composers of western classical music have composed requiems, and
one of the most memorable compositions is Clint Mansell’s Lux Aeterna for
Darren Aronofsky’s 2000 film Requiem
for a Dream. (You may listen to it here: Clint Mansell – Lux Aeterna – Requiem for a Dream).
'I am
a Miya' will be a requiem for Indian secularism if the world allows India’s Modi
regime to continue with its persecution of Indian Muslims.
“I was born a Hindu, no doubt. No one can undo the fact. But I am also a Muslim because I am a good Hindu. In the same way, I am also a Parsi and a Christian too.”
- Mahatma Gandhi 30 May 1947
------------------------
“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”
- Kurt Vonnegut
------------------------
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
- Karl Marx Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right